DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2015 Test 3 Answers 1. According

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2015 Test 3 Answers 1. According to Descartes, … a. what I really am is a body, but I also possess a mind. b. minds and bodies cannot causally interact with one another. c. thoughts are really just activities in the brain. d. conscious states always have physical causes, but never have physical effects. e. what I really am is a mind, but I also possess a body. 2. Which of the following would Descartes agree with? a. We can conceive of existing without a body. b. We can conceive of existing without a mind. c. We can conceive of existing without either a mind or a body. d. We can’t can’t conceive of existing without a body. e. We can’t conceive of material substance. 3. Substance dualism is the view that … a. there are two kinds of minds. b. there are two kinds of “basic stuff” in the world. c. there are two kinds of physics. d. there are two kinds of people in the world, those who break the world into two kinds of people, and those that don’t. e. material substance comes in two forms, matter and energy. 4. We call a property “accidental” (as opposed to “essential”) when ... a. it is the result of an car crash. b. it follows from a thing’s very nature. c. it is a property a thing can’t lose without ceasing to exist. d. it is a property a thing can lose without ceasing to exist. e. it is a property only a thinking thing could have. 5. According to Descartes, material things are ... a. extended, but non-thinking. b. thinking, but non-extended. c. both thinking and extended. d. neither thinking nor extended. e. things that exist only in our minds. 2 6. Descartes argues that minds and bodies cannot be identical because ... a. minds are divisible but bodies are not. b. minds occupy space but bodies do not. c. bodies are divisible but minds are not. d. bodies are conscious beings but minds are not. e. bodies have qualia but minds do not. 7. One problem with mind/body dualism is that … a. it apparently cannot explain how minds and bodies could interact causally. b. it apparently cannot explain how bodies could interact causally with each other. c. it apparently cannot explain how minds could interact causally with each other. d. it denies that bodies occupy space. e. it denies the existence of brain states. 8. Idealism (as discussed in the last chapter) … a. is a variety of substance dualism. b. urges us to have high moral standards. c. is a variety of substance monism. d. is a variety of materialism. e. none of the above. 9. Belief in life after death is apparently incompatible with … a. the view that mental states are identical to brain states. b. idealism. c. theism. d. the view that minds and bodies constitute two different kinds of basic substance. e. substance monism. 10. Physicalism (as described by Jackson) claims/implies that … a. everything that exists is made of matter. b. everything can (in principle) be explained by physical or material laws and principles. c. there is only one kind of basic stuff in the world. d. there is no immaterial mind or soul. e. all of the above. 3 11. Eliminative materialism… a. claims that mental states are identical to brain states. b. denies the existence of brain states. c. is a variety substance dualism. d. denies the existence of subjective awareness. e. none of the above. 12. Which of the following is not a variety of substance monism? a. Epiphenomenalism. b. Eliminative materialism. c. The identity theory. d. Idealism. e. None of the above—i.e., all of the above are varieties of substance monism. 13. Which of the following is not a variety of materialism? a. The identity theory. b. Substance dualism. c. Eliminative materialism. d. Epiphenomenalism. e. None of the above—i.e., all of the above are varieties of materialism. 14. According to the identity theory… a. a person’s true identity resides in his/her immaterial soul. b. no two blades of grass are completely identical. c. minds are identical to souls. d. all minds are identical. e. mental states are identical to brain states. 15. According to Leibniz’ Law, if “A” and “B” are identical, .... a. they must have all the same properties. b. they must be twins. c. they cannot have all the same properties. d. their essential properties must be the same, but their accidental properties might be different. e. their accidental properties must be the same, but their essential properties might be different. 4 16. Carruthers argues for the identity theory because at least some mental states apparently … a. don’t really exist. b. cause physical events. c. are identical to other mental states. d. are immaterial. e. can exist in Turing complete computers. 17. Carruthers believes that … a. all mental states are really brain states. b. only some mental states are really brain states. c. no mental states are really brain states. d. mental states don’t really exist. e. the existence of qualia is incompatible with epiphenomenalism. 18. Carruthers discusses an argument against the Identity Theory known as the Argument from Color. According to that argument (NOT his rebuttal of it) … a. some brain states are green. b. some after images are green. c. all brain states are green. d. we can’t be certain whether or not we ever really see after images. e. no qualia are green. 19. In his rebuttal of the Argument from Color, Carruthers argues that … a. some after-images are literally green. b. no after-images are literally green. c. some brain states are literally green. d. none of the above. e. exactly two of the above. 20. If the identity theory is true, then … a. life after bodily death is impossible. b. nothing without a brain can think. c. consciousness is some kind of neurological event. d. all of the above. e. none of the above. 5 21. According to the identity theory… a. there simply are no such things as mental states. b. mental events are real, but causally impotent. c. mental states are non-physical states that have physical causes and physical effects. d. mental states are states of an immaterial soul. e. mental states really are brain states, the way that lightening bolts really are electrical discharges. 22. Epiphenomenalism is (or includes) the view that … a. qualia are caused by physical events, but do not themselves cause physical events. b. some (but not all) physical events are caused by mental events. c. all physical events are caused by mental events. d. there simply are no such things as qualia (or other mental events). e. qualia cause physical events, but are not themselves caused by physical events. 23. According to Jackson, given that qualia are real, ... a. physicalism must be true. b. materialism must be false. c. epiphenomenalism must be false. d. they (qualia) must cause physical events. e. epiphenomenalism is the only alternative to dualism. 24. Given the way that Jackson (and others) uses the term, which of the following are not “qualia?” a. the itchiness of itches. b. the biological causes of pains. c. the hurtfulness of pains. d. the taste of a lemon. e. the smell of a rose. 25. The problem that (the existence of) qualia apparently poses for physicalism is that … a. qualia cannot be directly experienced, but can only be inferred. b. qualia cannot, in principle, be described by any purely mentalistic theory or description. c. qualia cannot, in principle, be described by any purely physical theory or description. d. qualia are too small to be detected by current scientific instrumentation. e. qualia must be immaterial. 6 26. According to Jackson, a “qualia freak” is one who … a. likes to eat small poultry for dinner. b. is obsessed with a former United States Vice President. c. believes that all information (truth) is ultimately information (truth) about physical things. d. believes that all information (truth) is ultimately information (truth) about qualia. e. none of the above. 27. Qualia, given the way Jackson uses this term, are … a. physical things, explainable in terms of the laws of physics. b. proof of substance dualism. c. necessarily subjective, and so cannot be fully described by any objective description. d. non-existent, i.e., nobody actually has any. e. necessarily objective, and so cannot be fully described by any subjective description. 28. According to Jackson, “physicalism” implies that everything that exists is physical and that … a. everything can, in principle, be explained by mentalistic theories. b. most, but not all things, can, in principle, be explained by physical theories. c. nothing can, in principle, be explained by physical theories. d. everything can, in principle, be explained by physical theories. e. quale are really quite tasty. 29. Jackson believes that one could know everything there is to know about color perception and still not know what red looks like. From this he infers that … a. there really isn’t anything that red looks like. b. there are facts that cannot be explained by philosophy. c. there are facts that cannot be explained by psychology. d. there are facts that cannot be explained by physics. e. facts are causally impotent. 30. Jackson thinks the existence of qualia is … a. directly known by first-person experience. b. proof of eliminative materialism. c. directly observed in the behavior of others. d. highly doubtful, but not impossible. e. evidence that computers can think. 7 31. According to Jackson, knowing everything about the physical stuff that makes up the universe … a.
Recommended publications
  • Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia?

    Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia?

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 12 Issue 4 Article 1 10-1-1995 Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia? David Merrihew Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Lewis, David Merrihew (1995) "Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia?," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 12 : Iss. 4 , Article 1. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol12/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. SHOULD A MATERIALIST BELIEVE IN QUALIA? David Lewis Should a materialist believe in qualia? Yes and no. 'Qualia' is a name for the occupants of a certain functional role that is spelled out in our tacitly known folk psychology. If materialism is true, there are no perfect occu­ pants of the role, and hence no perfect deservers of the name. But in all probability there are imperfect occupants of the role, imperfect deservers of the name. Good enough deservers of the name? May they just be called 'qualia'? I say yes. But I take this to be a case of semantic indecision. There is no settled answer to the question 'how good is good enough?'.
  • Dualistic Physicalism: from Phenomenon Dualism to Substance Dualism

    Dualistic Physicalism: from Phenomenon Dualism to Substance Dualism

    Dualistic Physicalism: From Phenomenon Dualism to Substance Dualism Joseph Polanik, JD Table of Contents Preface.................................................................................................................7 §1 The Central Question......................................................................................9 §2 The Brain/Experience Relation....................................................................11 §2.1 The Elements of Dualism.......................................................................11 §2.2 Proceeding from Common Ground........................................................13 §2.2.1 Evaluating Dennett's Defense of Materialism.................................13 §2.2.1.1 The Contradiction in the Dennett Defense...............................14 §2.2.1.2 Other Problems .......................................................................15 §2.2.1.2.1 Referring to Non-Existents...............................................15 §2.2.1.2.2 Violation of Common Sense..............................................16 §2.2.1.2.3 Denial of Experience.........................................................16 §2.2.1.2.4 Anticipating Type-Z Materialism......................................18 §2.2.1.3 Standing Precisely Against Eliminative Materialism ..............20 §2.2.2 The Argument for Dualism from Experience..................................21 §2.2.3 What Sort of Dualism is This?.........................................................25 §2.2.3.1 Phenomenon Dualism is Not Predicate Dualism.....................26
  • Dennett's Theory of the Folk Theory of Consciousness

    Dennett's Theory of the Folk Theory of Consciousness

    Dennett’s Theory of the Folk Theory of Consciousness1 Justin Sytsma Abstract: It is not uncommon to find assumptions being made about folk psychology in the discussions of phenomenal consciousness in philosophy of mind. In this article I consider one example, focusing on what Dan Dennett says about the “folk theory of consciousness.” I show that he holds that the folk believe that qualities like colors that we are acquainted with in ordinary perception are phenomenal qualities. Nonetheless, the shape of the folk theory is an empirical matter and in the absence of empirical investigation there is ample room for doubt. Fortunately, experimental evidence on the topic is now being produced by experimental philosophers and psychologists. This article contributes to this growing literature, presenting the results of six new studies on the folk view of colors and pains. I argue that the results indicate against Dennett’s theory of the folk theory of consciousness. The existence of phenomenal consciousness is often taken for granted in the philosophical and scientific literature on the topic. Sometimes, this attitude is supported by claims that phenomenal consciousness is in some way evident in our ordinary experience itself.2 The prevalence of this attitude can also be seen in the way that some skeptics about phenomenal consciousness discuss the supposed phenomenon. For example, the qualia eliminativist Dan Dennett seems to accept that belief in qualia is part of our “folk theory of consciousness” (2005, 31). In contrast, I have argued that phenomenal consciousness is not evident in ordinary experience alone—that it is not phenomenologically obvious—and that this can be drawn out by 1 To appear in the Journal of Consciousness Studies.
  • Matter and Consciousness

    Matter and Consciousness

    Matter and Consciousness Historical Parallels As the identity theorist can point to historical cases of successful Paul Churchland, 1984 intertheoretic reduction, so the eliminative materialist can point to historical cases of the outright elimination of the ontology of an older theory in favor of the ontology of a new and superior theory. For most of Chapter 2: The Ontological Problem (the Mind-Body Problem) the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, learned people believed that heat was a subtle fluid held in bodies, much in the way water is held in a sponge. A fair body of moderately successful theory described the way 5. Eliminative Materialism this fluid substance—called “caloric”—flowed within a body, or from one body to another, and how it produced thermal expansion, melting, The identity theory was called into doubt not because the prospects for a boiling, and so forth. But by the end of the last century it had become materialist account of our mental capacities were thought to be poor, but abundantly clear that heat was not a substance at all, but just the energy because it seemed unlikely that the arrival of an adequate materialist of motion of the trillions of jostling molecules that makeup the heated theory would bring with it the nice one-to-one match-ups, between the body itself. The new theory—the “corpuscular/kinetic theory of matter concepts of folk psychology and the concepts of theoretical and heat”—was much more successful than the old in explaining and neuroscience, that intertheoretic reduction requires. The reason for that predicting the thermal behavior of bodies.
  • Maintaining Meaningful Expressions of Romantic Love in a Material World

    Maintaining Meaningful Expressions of Romantic Love in a Material World

    Reconciling Eros and Neuroscience: Maintaining Meaningful Expressions of Romantic Love in a Material World by ANDREW J. PELLITIERI* Boston University Abstract Many people currently working in the sciences of the mind believe terms such as “love” will soon be rendered philosophically obsolete. This belief results from a common assumption that such terms are irreconcilable with the naturalistic worldview that most modern scientists might require. Some philosophers reject the meaning of the terms, claiming that as science progresses words like ‘love’ and ‘happiness’ will be replaced completely by language that is more descriptive of the material phenomena taking place. This paper attempts to defend these meaningful concepts in philosophy of mind without appealing to concepts a materialist could not accept. Introduction hilosophy engages the meaning of the word “love” in a myriad of complex discourses ranging from ancient musings on happiness, Pto modern work in the philosophy of mind. The eliminative and reductive forms of materialism threaten to reduce the importance of our everyday language and devalue the meaning we attach to words like “love,” in the name of scientific progress. Faced with this threat, some philosophers, such as Owen Flanagan, have attempted to defend meaningful words and concepts important to the contemporary philosopher, while simultaneously promoting widespread acceptance of materialism. While I believe that the available work is useful, I think * [email protected]. Received 1/2011, revised December 2011. © the author. Arché Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy, Volume V, Issue 1: Winter 2012. pp. 60-82 RECONCILING EROS AND NEUROSCIENCE 61 more needs to be said about the functional role of words like “love” in the script of progressing neuroscience, and further the important implications this yields for our current mode of practical reasoning.
  • Some Unnoticed Implications of Churchland's Pragmatic Pluralism

    Some Unnoticed Implications of Churchland's Pragmatic Pluralism

    Contemporary Pragmatism Editions Rodopi Vol. 8, No. 1 (June 2011), 173–189 © 2011 Beyond Eliminative Materialism: Some Unnoticed Implications of Churchland’s Pragmatic Pluralism Teed Rockwell Paul Churchland’s epistemology contains a tension between two positions, which I will call pragmatic pluralism and eliminative materialism. Pragmatic pluralism became predominant as his episte- mology became more neurocomputationally inspired, which saved him from the skepticism implicit in certain passages of the theory of reduction he outlined in Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. However, once he replaces eliminativism with a neurologically inspired pragmatic pluralism, Churchland (1) cannot claim that folk psychology might be a false theory, in any significant sense; (2) cannot claim that the concepts of Folk psychology might be empty of extension and lack reference; (3) cannot sustain Churchland’s critic- ism of Dennett’s “intentional stance”; (4) cannot claim to be a form of scientific realism, in the sense of believing that what science describes is somehow realer that what other conceptual systems describe. One of the worst aspects of specialization in Philosophy and the Sciences is that it often inhibits people from asking the questions that could dissolve long standing controversies. This paper will deal with one of these controversies: Churchland’s proposal that folk psychology is a theory that might be false. Even though one of Churchland’s greatest contributions to philosophy of mind was demonstrating that the issues in philosophy of mind were a subspecies of scientific reduction, still philosophers of psychology have usually defended or critiqued folk psychology without attempting to carefully analyze Churchland’s theory of reduction.
  • Introduction to Philosophy Fall 2016—Test 3 Answers 1. According to Descartes

    Introduction to Philosophy Fall 2016—Test 3 Answers 1. According to Descartes

    Introduction to Philosophy Fall 2016—Test 3 Answers 1. According to Descartes, … a. what I really am is a body, but I also possess a mind. b. minds and bodies can’t causally interact with one another, but God fools us into believing they do. c. cats and dogs have immortal souls, just like you and I. d. conscious states always have physical causes, but never have physical effects. E. WHAT I REALLY AM IS A MIND, BUT I ALSO POSSESS A BODY. 2. Which of the following would Descartes agree with? A. WE CAN CONCEIVE OF EXISTING WITHOUT A BODY. b. We can conceive of existing without a mind. c. We can conceive of existing without either a mind or a body. d. We can’t conceive of mental substance. e. We can’t conceive of material substance. 3. Substance dualism is the view that … a. there are two kinds of minds. B. THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF “ BASIC STUFF” IN THE WORLD. c. there are two kinds of physical particles. d. there are two kinds of people in the world—those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those that don’t. e. material substance comes in two forms, matter and energy. 4. We call a property “accidental” (as opposed to “essential”) when ... a. it is the result of an car crash. b. it follows from a thing’s very nature. c. it is a property a thing can’t lose (without ceasing to exist). D. IT IS A PROPERTY A THING CAN LOSE (WITHOUT CEASING TO EXIST).
  • Tools of Pragmatism

    Tools of Pragmatism

    Coping with the World: Tools of Pragmatism Mind, Brain and the Intentional Vocabulary Anders Kristian Krabberød Hovedoppgave Filosofisk Institutt UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Høsten 2004 Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 2 2. Different Ways of Describing the Same Thing ........................................... 7 3. Rorty and Vocabularies ............................................................................. 11 The Vocabulary-Vocabulary ...............................................................................................13 Reduction and Ontology......................................................................................................17 4. The Intentional Vocabulary and Folk Psychology: the Churchlands and Eliminative Materialism ................................................................................ 21 Eliminative Materialism......................................................................................................22 Dire Consequences..............................................................................................................24 Objecting against Eliminative Materialism..........................................................................25 1. The first objection: Eliminative materialism is a non-starter........................................27 2. The second objection: What could possibly falsify Folk Psychology?...........................29 3. The third objection: Folk Psychology is used
  • Privileged Access and Qualia

    Privileged Access and Qualia

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by European Scientific Journal (European Scientific Institute) European Scientific Journal December 2015 edition vol.11, No.35 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 PRIVILEGED ACCESS AND QUALIA Thomas W. Smythe Retired Associate Professor, North Carolina Central University Abstract In this paper I shall examine some recent literature that purports to show that sensations or qualia are not real psychological phenomena, and that we do not have privileged access to our psychological states. In particular, I shall criticize some work by Daniel C. Dennett, who has argued against the existence of qualia and privileged access to the mental. I will maintain that Dennett has not made a convincing case for eliminating qualia, and has not shown that we do not have privileged access to psychological phenomena from a first-person point of view. Keywords: Qualia, Privileged Access, Self-Warranting Knowledge Introduction I will defend the view that certain criticisms of what has been called self-justifying or self-warranting knowledge of our psychological states have not succeeded. I will do this by arguing that attempts by Dennett and others to undermine self-justifying knowledge are unsuccessful. I begin by examining a paper by Dennett where he attempts to eliminate qualia. In a notable paper called ”Quining Qualia,” Dennett explains that he uses the verb ‘to quine’ in honor of W. V. O. Quine. It means to deny resolutely the existence or importance of something seemingly real and significant, for example, the soul. Quining qualia means saying there is no such thing as qualia.
  • Qualia NICHOLAS HARKNESS Harvard University, USA

    Qualia NICHOLAS HARKNESS Harvard University, USA

    Qualia NICHOLAS HARKNESS Harvard University, USA Qualia (singular, quale) are cultural emergents that manifest phenomenally as sensuous features or qualities. The anthropological challenge presented by qualia is to theorize elements of experience that are semiotically generated but apperceived as non-signs. Qualia are not reducible to a psychology of individual perceptions of sensory data, to a cultural ontology of “materiality,” or to philosophical intuitions about the subjective properties of consciousness. The analytical solution to the challenge of qualia is to con- sider tone in relation to the familiar linguistic anthropological categories of token and type. This solution has been made methodologically practical by conceptualizing qualia, in Peircean terms, as “facts of firstness” or firstness “under its form of secondness.” Inthephilosophyofmind,theterm“qualia”hasbeenusedtodescribetheineffable, intrinsic, private, and directly or immediately apprehensible experiences of “the way things seem,” which have been taken to constitute the atomic subjective properties of consciousness. This concept was challenged in an influential paper by Daniel Dennett, who argued that qualia “is a philosophers’ term which fosters nothing but confusion, and refers in the end to no properties or features at all” (Dennett 1988, 387). Dennett concluded, correctly, that these diverse elements of feeling, made sensuously present atvariouslevelsofattention,wereactuallyidiosyncraticresponsestoapperceptions of “public, relational” qualities. Qualia were, in effect,
  • Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology's

    Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology's

    Augsburg Honors Review Volume 12 Article 4 2019 Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire Allison Mangan Augsburg University Follow this and additional works at: https://idun.augsburg.edu/honors_review Part of the Epistemology Commons Recommended Citation Mangan, Allison (2019) "Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire," Augsburg Honors Review: Vol. 12 , Article 4. Available at: https://idun.augsburg.edu/honors_review/vol12/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate at Idun. It has been accepted for inclusion in Augsburg Honors Review by an authorized editor of Idun. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Allison Mangan Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire Alio Maga, Augbug Univesty ualia are layered and complex, the basic philosophic understanding a labyrinth of a concept, of qualia today. We will see how Q rife with debate as to their consciousness is necessary for qualia, existence, state, and what they mean and why this makes defning qualia for our understanding of knowledge, a challenge. Next, we will go over the relationship with the world, and explanatory gap of qualia. From there, ourselves. Toughtful exploration into we will see how qualia relate to the mind- the complexities of what qualia are body problem, and the early exploration and how they relate to the mind-body of this problem through Descartes, problem will be wrestled with though Locke, and Berkeley. Additionally, we research applied within this paper. will go over the main schools of thought Qualia can be found in philosophical that surround the mind-body problem: debates surrounding epistemology materialism, idealism, and dualism.
  • 1 a REFUTATION of QUALIA-PHYSICALISM Michael

    1 a REFUTATION of QUALIA-PHYSICALISM Michael

    1 To appear in M. O’Rourke and C. Washington (eds.), Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry (MIT Press) A REFUTATION OF QUALIA-PHYSICALISM Michael McKinsey Wayne State University Recent defenders of reductive physicalism such as Brian Loar (1990, 1997) and John Perry (2001) have adopted an intriguing new strategy:i (1) accept as so much common sense (nearly) everything that property-dualists want to say about sensory qualia, including the central claims that sensory qualia determine ‘what it’s like’ to have a given sense experience, and that persons are directly aware of these qualia in the having of such experiences; (2) contend that while these common sense facts about qualia may show that our ways of thinking and speaking about qualia are conceptually different from our ways of thinking and speaking about physical properties of the brain, these facts do not show that sensory qualia themselves (as opposed to our ways of thinking and speaking about them) are distinct from physical properties of the brain; (3) use this contention to turn aside the few existing arguments against reductive physicalism by such property dualists as Kripke (1972), Nagel (1974), Jackson (1982), and Chalmers (1996); and finally (4) insist that sensory qualia are in fact just identical with physical properties of the brain, so that consequently, the facts about the sensory qualities of conscious experience are nothing over and above physical facts about the brain. I will call the view that incorporates this strategy ‘qualia-physicalism’, or ‘Q-physicalism’ for short. In this paper I will argue that Q-physicalism is false.